Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, so the bar is lower. The description nonetheless adds genuinely useful behavior: default 7-day window, 14-day maximum, employer time zone with offset, and the `available` false edge case meaning no availability has been configured in the dashboard.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the definition of what 'free times' means, then layers defaults, limits, time zone, and the error case in four tight sentences. The dashboard pointer (Calendar → Availability) is slightly extraneous for an agent but earns some place as a remediation hint.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Safety profile is covered by annotations and return values by the output schema, so the description only needs to carry semantics. It does that well for time windowing but leaves the identity parameters and meeting_type_id unexplained, which is a real gap for a 5-param tool with no schema docs.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% and 5 parameters exist, yet the description only explains start and end (ISO 8601, 7-day default, 14-day cap). job_id, application_id, and especially meeting_type_id — which plausibly changes which availability is computed — are entirely unaddressed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource and, crucially, defines the computation: 'weekly availability minus their other bookings' for 'the member's own interview with this candidate'. That framing makes it clearly distinct from list_upcoming_interviews and book_follow_up_interview.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The 'free times for the member's own interview with this candidate' scoping plus 'minus their other bookings' implies it is the pre-booking availability lookup, and the flow to book_follow_up_interview is easy to infer. It never explicitly names the sibling to call next or states exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.